Gallup: U.S. Population Highly Militaristic

In early 2014 there were unusual news stories about Gallup's end-of-2013 polling
because after polling in 65 countries with the question "Which country
do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?" the
overwhelming winner had been the United States of America.

Had Gallup then conducted a poll on whether Gallup would ever ask
that question again, I'm willing to bet large numbers would have said
no. And thus far they would have been right. But Gallup managed to ask
some other good questions, almost certainly by accident as well, in its end-of-2014 polling, revealing something else about the United States and militarism.

Curiously, Gallup's end-of-2014 polling managed to ask a lot more
questions -- 32 instead of 6 and even squeezed in one on whether people
wash their hands after using the bathroom -- so the threat-to-peace
question wasn't dropped for lack of space.

In both the 2013 and the 2014 polling, the first question is whether
people think the next year will be better than the last, the second
whether their country's economy will do well, and the third whether the
person is happy. This sort of fluff is odd, because Gallup advertises
the polling with this quote from Dr. George H. Gallup: "If democracy is
supposed to be based on the will of the people, then somebody should go
out and find out what that will is." So, what policies do the people
want? Who the hell can tell from this sort of questioning?

- Advertisement -

By question 4 of those questions made public, the 2013 and 2014 polls diverge. Here's what was asked in 2013:

If there were no barrier to living in any country of the world, which country would you like to live in?

If politicians were predominantly women, do you believe the world
would in general be a better place, a worse place or no different?

Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?

And that's it. There's nothing like Should your government invest
more or less in militarism? or Should your government expand or reduce
support for fossil fuels? or Does your government imprison too many or
too few people? or Do you favor greater or less public investment in
education? The questions Gallup asks are supposed to produce fluff. What
happened is that the last question ended up producing a substantive
response by accident. When the rest of the world declared the United
States the greatest threat to peace (the people of the United States
gave Iran that designation) it amounted to a recommendation to the U.S.
government, namely that it stop launching so many wars.

We can't have that! Polling is supposed to be fun and diverting!

- Advertisement -

Here are the remaining questions from the end of 2014:

Compared to this year, do you think that 2015 will be a more
peaceful year freer of international dispute, remain the same or a
troubled year with more international discord?

What a great polling question, if you don't want to learn anything!
Any discord is equated with the opposite of peace, i.e. war, and people
are asked for a baseless prediction, not a policy preference.

If there were a war that involved [your country's name] would you be willing to fight for your country?

This reduces respondents from citizen sovereigns to cannon fodder.
It's not "Should your country seek out more wars?" but "Would you be
willing to commit murder on behalf of your country in an unspecified war
for an unstated purpose?" And again, Gallup accidentally revealed
something here, but let's come back to that after listing the rest of
the questions (feel free to just skim the list).

Do you feel that elections in [your country's name] are free and fair?

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: [your country's name] is ruled by the will of the people.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statement: Democracy may have problems but it is the best system of
government.

Which of the following is more important to you: your continent,
your nationality, your local county/state/province/city, your religion,
your ethnic group, or none of these?

Irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not, would
you say you are a religious person, not a religious person, or a
convinced atheist?

How sympathetic or unsympathetic would you say you feel toward those
who come to your country for the following reason: lack of political or
religious freedom in their country?

How sympathetic or unsympathetic would you say you feel toward those
who come to your country for the following reason: to join their family
who are already in the country?

How sympathetic or unsympathetic would you say you feel toward those
who come to your country for the following reason: fleeing persecution
in their country?

How sympathetic or unsympathetic would you say you feel toward those
who come to your country for the following reason: wanting a better
life?

How sympathetic or unsympathetic would you say you feel toward those
who come to your country for the following reason: escaping sexual or
gender discrimination?

How sympathetic or unsympathetic would you say you feel toward those
who come to your country for the following reason: escaping war or
armed conflict?

Overall do you think globalization is a good thing, bad thing, or neither good nor bad for the USA?

Do you trust or distrust the following groups of people: Judges?

Do you trust or distrust the following groups of people: Journalists?

Do you trust or distrust the following groups of people: Politicians?

Do you trust or distrust the following groups of people: Business people?

Do you trust or distrust the following groups of people: Military?

Do you trust or distrust the following groups of people: Healthcare workers?

Do you trust or distrust the following groups of people: Police?

Do you trust or distrust the following groups of people: Teachers?

Do you trust or distrust the following groups of people: Bankers?

Do you trust or distrust the following groups of people: Religious leaders?

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following
statement: We should not allow corrupt foreign politicians and business
people to spend their proceeds from corruption in my country.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following
statement: The Government is effective at preventing corrupt politicians
and business people from spending their proceeds from corruption in my
country.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following
statement: The Government should require companies to publish the real
names of their shareholders and owners.

How strongly do you feel that your mobile device (including mobile
phone and other hand held devices) enhances your quality of life?

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following
statement: Washing my hands with soap after going to the toilet is
something I automatically do.

Now, something interesting might be gathered from any of these
questions, even the soap one. It's interesting that in religiosity the
United States resembles the places it wages war on, as opposed to the
places its military is allied with which have virtually no use for
religion. And the questions on corrupt investment and shareholder
transparency almost seem like policy questions, although the predictably
one-sided responses give them a dog-bites-man non-news quality.

Which Nations' Populations Are Most Accepting of More Wars?

This question is quite interesting because of the answers given
around the world: "If there were a war that involved [your country's
name] would you be willing to fight for your country?" Now, if your
country were under attack or recently under attack or threatened with
attack, that might, I suppose, lead you toward a yes answer. Or if you
trusted your government not to launch offensive wars, that too -- I'm
guessing -- might lead you toward a yes answer. But the United States
routinely launches wars that, before long, a majority of its population
says shouldn't have been launched. What percentage of Americans will
nonetheless say they're theoretically willing to join in any war
whatsoever?

- Advertisement -

Of course, the question is a bit vague. What if "a war that involved
the United States" were taken to mean the actual United States and not
the affairs of its government thousands of miles away? Or what if "fight
for your country" were taken to mean "fight in actual defense of your
actual country"? Obviously such interpretations would add to the yes
answers. But such interpretations would require serious distance from
reality; those aren't the kind of wars that are waged by the United
States. And very clearly people who answered this survey in some other
parts of the world tended not to use such an interpretation. Or even if
they understood the question to involve an attack on their nation, they
did not see war as a viable response worthy of their participation.

In Italy 68 percent of Italians polled said they would NOT fight for
their country, while 20 percent said they would. In Germany 62 percent
said they would not, while 18 percent said they would. In the Czech
Republic, 64 percent would not fight for their country, while 23 percent
would. In the Netherlands, 64 percent would not fight for their
country, while 15 percent would. In Belgium, 56 percent would not, while
19 percent would. Even in the UK, 51 percent would not participate in a
UK war, while 27 percent would. In France, Iceland, Ireland, Spain, and
Switzerland, more people would refuse to be part of a war than would
agree. The same goes for Australia and Canada. In Japan only 10 percent
would fight for their country.

What about the United States? Despite waging the greatest number of
most baseless and most costly wars, the United States manages 44 percent
claiming a willingness to fight and 31 percent refusing. By no means is
that the world record. Israel is at 66 percent ready to fight and 13
percent not. Afghanistan is at 76 to 20. Russia, Sweden, Finland, and
Greece are all ready to fight with strong majorities. Argentina and
Denmark have ties between those who would fight and those who would not.

David Swanson is the author of "When the World Outlawed War," "War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union." He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online (more...)